Skip to main content

About your Search

Search Results 0 to 8 of about 9
and broadening opportunity for the middle class is shrinking our deficits in a balanced and responsible way. and for nearly two years now, i've been fighting for such a plan -- one that would reduce our deficits by $4 trillion over the next decade, which would stabilize our debt and our deficit in a sustainable way for the next decade. that would be enough not only to stop the growth of our debt relative to the size of our economy, but it would make it manageable so it doesn't crowd out the investments we need to make in people and education and job training and science and medical research -- all the things that help us grow. now, step by step, we've made progress towards that goal. over the past two years, i've signed into law about $1.4 trillion in spending cuts. two weeks ago, i signed into law more than $600 billion in new revenue by making sure the wealthiest americans begin to pay their fair share. when you add the money that we'll save in interest payments on the debt, all together that adds up to a total of about $2.5 trillion in deficit reduction over the past two years -- not cou
of savings from spending on health care and revenues from closing loopholes, we consult the deficit issue without sacrificing our investments in things like education that are going to help us grow. it turns out the american people agree with me. they listened to an entire year's debate over this issue, and they made a clear decision about the approach they prefer. they do not think it is fair to ask a senior to pay more for his or her health care or a scientist to shut down like that saving research so that a multi millionaire investor can take less in tax rates then a second trip -- and a secretary. they do not think it is smart to protect and as corporate loopholes and tax breaks for the wealthiest americans rather than rebuild roads and schools or help manufacturers bring jobs back to america. they want us to get our books in order in a balanced way where everyone pulls their weight, everyone does their part. that is what i want as well. that is what i have proposed. we can get it done, but we're going to have to make sure people are looking at this irresponsible way, rather than just
in the late 1980's when we didn't have to talk about how to pay for disaster assistance because the deficit was only $3 trillion. but we've so badly mismanaged our money after that, by the time we got to hurricane katrina in 2005, that we actually did start talking about offsetting and paying for disaster relief and paid for and offset about 40% of it. but we didn't learn. we didn't learn from those mistakes and we've continued to mismanage our money and to run up our deficit to such a point now where we're at $16 trillion today and it's incumbent upon us to have the discussion about whether or not we have the money to do this. and whether or not it's important enough to us to pay for it. i wish very much that we weren't here today. i wish very much that we could pass this and easily borrow the money, without any questions whatsoever. but we've wasted that opportunity. we've mismanaged our own finances to the point where we are now no longer capable of taking care of our own. think about that for a second. in the united states of america we do not have enough money to take care of our own c
to prioritize the government's bills. what's wrong with that idea? guest: we have had some deficit reduction. as the president laid out a couple days ago, we have had over $2 trillion. we had 1.5 trillion that came from previous actions. and then we added just a few days ago some further deficit reductions through some increased taxes on the very wealthy of this country. so we have already begun to undertake deficit reduction. to use that as a reason to use the debt ceiling as a weapon is really playing with fire. they say pay some bills and not pay others. we have never tried that before. host: is it feasible? guest: i don't think so. which bills? social security? veterans? people out fighting for this country? which bills do you pay? we never tried that. i think the president put it so well. this is not a deadbeat nation really, and i think common sense is likely to prevail within the republican ranks. i know, if i might say so, if not firsthand, secondhand, much of the leadership within the house republican caucus, not all of it, i think some realizes the potential consequences. host: if
this. yes, it may run up the immediate deficit, but once again, for every dollar that we invest in those levees we not only save lives and property, but we put people to work and we get the economic engine going. further up in my district, again, along the sacramento and the rivers, i have a project that's 44 miles of levee that clearly will fail. it has failed four times in the last 60 years. lives have been lost. one of the most catastrophic failures of a levee happened in this stretch of river. we need to rebuild that. the federal government's role in these construction projects of these levees has gone back to the very beginning of this nation and it is congress' task to allocate the money to decide the projects that are going to be built. but unfortunately we tied ourselves in knots here with certain rules that have been put in by our republican colleagues that prevent us from taking the necessary action to protect our communities. we're not talking about, you know, willy nily unnecessary projects. we're talking about saving -- nilly unnecessary projects. we're talking abou
they need to put inshunes on a gun like you do a car. host: so often we focus on the u.s. debt or deficit, we have exceeded now the dealt limit of $16.4 trillion. you can see in the upper left-hand side the debt clock. difficult choices on the debt if the u.s. think it's ceiling. the piece points out by mid february or early march the united states could face an unprecedented default unless it raises the debt ceiling. that was from tim geithner. further into the body of the "new york times" story i want to is share with you some of the numbers "the new york times" points out today. that could happen as early as february 15, if that happens by february 15 or early march, according to the by partisan policy center in analysis of what the government expects is $8 billion in revenue that day but it has $52 billion in spending that day, $6.8 billion in tax refunds, $3.5 in federal salaries, and $1.5 ode to military contractors and other commitments. consider again that day on february 15 f that is the day we reach the limit, the country would not have enough money to pay the bond holders let a
ground sell. especially with issues like debt and deficit dealing with what ever happens on gun control, they have a big heavy docket already. there are a lot of reasons this could still stumble. >> on the issue of guns and gun violence, the story on -- available on line with the headline in -- we asked him, what will pass? guest: i wish i knew. i would hope we could close the gun show loophole. which could limit the size of magazines. i would hope that we would have background checks the same for everybody and actually have some teeth and took them. host: what would the senate passed? what will house republican support with a twist on guns? guest: let's begin with the process that he will hold a hearing. he will hold a hearing and try to see what consensus can develop out of there. he is critical to this. the lot would come through his committee. the speech he game at georgetown on wednesday. i came away from their unsure of how far he is willing to go. he said he would be willing to take a look at an assault weapons ban, which he voted for in 1994. he said he told an interesting story
. the problem is if you'd inadvertently did not disclose information, you are put out a credibility deficit with the public, and sometimes it is hard to get out of that, and it is difficult for or organizations to think about releasing the information before it is out for. -- asked for. i have been involved in several situations where the information was available and understandable. it mitigated some concerns. it was difficult to make that transparent, and catching up with that is really difficult. one reason for the impact was the lack of information as a baseline for understanding there had been a change. as a context for moving beyond the research done, what do you think the larger research agenda ought to be about? >> the hydrocarbons in the continental shelf and inland areas are pretty well known. it is the deep sea we did not have information for. i think the deep sea ecosystem is an area we need to emphasize, and some of the longer living organisms such as marine mammals. one of the issues is the effect of multiple stressors. we have some smart jury is that were heavily oiled, and s
to new gun laws. >> tomorrow, former senators conrad and grade lead a discussion on deficit issues. we will be live starting at 8:30 a.m. eastern on c-span to. and at 1:00 p.m. eastern, chamber of commerce president thomas downey year -- thomas donahue called for immigration legislation. we will be live from the national press club also on c- span to. -- c-span 2. >> he talked about the dream he had, he talked about for years, the american dream. it had been his dream. and he was in detroit a few months before. he talked about -- i have a dream that america will someday realize its principals in the declaration of independence. so i think he is just inspired by that moment. >> sunday, claiborne carson recalls his journey as a civil- rights activist, participating on the 1963 march on washington. it is part of three days of the tv this weekend, monday featuring authors and books on the inauguration. >> president obama officially launched his effort to reduce gun violence wednesday, calling for action in congress and signing 23 executive orders to deal with the issue. speaking before an
Search Results 0 to 8 of about 9